Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 21, 2014 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT

5:00 pm
5:01 pm
5:02 pm
san francisco. >> >> >> this could include exemptions from current zoning
5:03 pm
or bonuses that would be available to historic resources and not other properties in the city, and then last we are suggesting a policy that says provide technical support for the coordination of state and federal incentive programs. we would like to acknowledge that staff doesn't manage -- their cities doesn't manage the programs but we would like to do a better job and promote state and federal incentive programs and we can play a stronger role in coordinating those efforts so that really ends my presentation. we can talk about objective six and if you want to move in and talk about any further structural or perceptual changes that occurred to you that we haven't talked about yet, and also make any recommendations for future staff presentations on the element that would be great. >> okay. questions or comments
5:04 pm
about objective six? >> yeah, i appreciate your comments about the first of the three -- the first two of the suggested new policies, and i would suggest that after the sentence that we have before us we put a comma and say including or such as or for example, and we list some of these things because otherwise i don't think anybody has a clue to what those means. >> yeah. >> and your explanation was very helpful so i would like to see those. >> yeah. >> commissioner masoota. >> that's exactly what i had down too but in addition i hope to include promote and expand the use, and hopefully public comment mr. buick can talk about the summit we had a year ago,
5:05 pm
two years ago where we talked about further ways to expand the use to recognize social and cultural heritage district or heritage properties and heritage businesses. >> commissioner. >> on your suggested new policies i agree about the word processed based. i am a little concerned and will wait to hear what those things actually are but things like priority review is a little dicey relative to the mayor wants priority review of this and supervisors want priority review of that and now we're encouraging priority review of preservation projects and all of a sudden everything is a priority which means nothing is a priority and just a concern about how you implement that and the zoning base incentives. you use the idea of a bonus for people that potentially own a historic building and that went to my
5:06 pm
gut and seems like a level of fairness if i happen to be next door to a historic resource and my house doesn't have it all of a sudden i'm screwed because i don't have a historic building, so it's just how that is implemented, what the wording is, has to be flushed out, so but i appreciate that they're in there. i think that's important and actually one thing it relates back to what we discussed with the henry adams thing. it's a profit base incentive change to have the zoning changed in the section listed for the buildings that we talked about so there are things in the code already that are incentive based or processed based to grant incentives, so how those get flushed out would be part of it i would assume. >> thank you. commissioner. >> well i focus on the word "educate" and i think what we're trying to hear is we want
5:07 pm
to educate the public and give them more technical support here. either think of a new policy or another policy or add to what you say here, so what sort of gets to what i am talking about it says "provide technical support for the coordination of state and federal incentive programs" but that doesn't get to really wanting to educate the public so some of the comments made here to for by some of the commissioners and using the examples for incentives but i don't know. i guess it would be more of what we can we do to provide more education and technical support for the public? >> staff -- if you don't mind i would like to add to that. in the next presentation we will talk about objective seven and foster public aware scpnsz appreciation and just occurred to me there are several policies reviewed that seem to sort of
5:08 pm
touch on the issue of public awareness, education, outreach and i will try to bring all of the ones we already discussed into -- >> okay. >> -- into the next presentation so we can figure out if they need to live in different areas and make sure they're all working in concert. >> okay. great. thanks. >> other comments? i have a few. one is on policy .2. -- 6.two is one is the city using the historic building code and generally we want to use it by anyone developing historic property. there seems there are two parts. one is the historic building code and having city permitting officials accept the building code and planners say
5:09 pm
use the historic planning code and you get to dbi and "oh no that's not going to work" and there are resistance to use of the code and maybe that could be addressed in the implementation steps but i think that one could be parsed out into two pieces, and then i don't know whether under the zoning based incentives -- so would that include potentially an expansion of the tdr program? or do we want to be explicit about tdr as a potential, something we want to consider expand something. >> i believe we can certainly do that in the implementation measures. it might be a little too specific for a policy, but and technically yes, i think it is a zoning based -- >> incentive. >> there is financial benefit there as well. tends to be some cross pollinination between the three types of incentives but i
5:10 pm
think they are distinct. >> maybe it's an implementation under >> yes. >> one of the implementation measures. commissioner. >> yeah, i just had a quick comment on 6.2 following up on the question. just to remove the city -- the city will use the word "and" and use promote and then in the plent measures we can talk how the city agencies interact. >> yeah, good idea. so i don't think we did public comment on this section, so now we will do public comment on objective six. anybody have public comment on this section please come forward and state your name if you're so comfortable. >>i am richard swrelman and charter member of the victoria alliance and have been sitting to the procedures this afternoon. this comment is not
5:11 pm
particularly on section six but an overall comment. i am hearing about preservation. i don't want to see the city frozen in amber. what isn't being talked about this afng and should be being talked about is restoration. as you go around san francisco and look at the city and think about the city i would like to see i would like to see more emphasis on restoration that has been previously. we're only talking about preservation and should talk about restoration of the city resources. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. mike beuller with the san francisco heritage and just to reference the commissioner's comments earlier she was referring to a community summit that heritage convened last june, june 2013 entitled
5:12 pm
"sustaining san francisco live's history" and invited representatives from various neighborhoods with cultural heritage conservation efforts under way such as japantown, soma, the bay view, and chinatown to make presentations on challenges they're facing to retain their cultural heritage resources and tools that have been proposed or utilized in those communities to help stem the displacement of social heritage resources. in that -- during that summit attendees and our panelists suggested a range oftives, whether financial, regulatory, or process driven incentives that could be incorporated into the implementation measures when this particular objective is flushed out in the future. i believe we're on your -- heritage is on the calendar for the august 20 meeting to present
5:13 pm
a report that is really an outcome from the community summit that not only summarizes the incentives discussed during that session but provides a number of case studies from all over the world to illustrate what other cities of doing to grapple with the displacement of traditional and cultural uses, so hopefully that will be instructive and can be informative are are for development of the preservation element. my only comment with regard to this particular objective is i feel there could be a definitional problem throughout the various policies under objective six it refers to historic resources. it is not clear whether the definition of historic resources as used here is intended to reference the ceqa definition of historical
5:14 pm
resources or a broader concept that encompasses what we have been discussing as social heritage resources here. we believe it might be helpful to incorporate broader language into the objective or under policy 6.1 for example or all of the policies that refer to various incentives to state something like promote the use of incentive for the cultural and preservation of these social heritage resources. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am from the victorian alliance. i know we're going to go into these things more in-depth next month but clearly when we're talking about efforts to increase awareness, outreach, and education and incentivizing conservation these are elements that are extremely important and dear to our hearts. when we
5:15 pm
look at in particular how very often some small projects don't take on rehabilitation of their facades because they think it's too cumbersome or there aren't enough incentives and the process on smaller projects is that without planning going to designated review, which really is very infrequent, there aren't many tools to encourage tackling that beast. what we don't want things to be owner some for the homeowner there is are a number of instances where small buildings are converted from two to three units. you see the profit potential that's in it and yet there are no triggers
5:16 pm
that you're gutting out the entire interior of a place. you're making it three unit instead of two unit yet you allocated nothing as a community benefit to restoring the basad, -- facade so incentivizing, it is really both carrot stick. whether there are financial incentivetives, whether there are regulatory standards, which set triggers if you're doing this degree of renovation you have to at least approach and look at and coming up with a plan for addressing the other as a community benefit. we think these should be included. the goal really is to see that as much restoration and rehabilitation occur and especially in that sort of gray area of the smaller projects. we think that there's room to
5:17 pm
improve the position of very strongly encouraging it for the developers as they enter these projects. thank you. >> thank you. is there anybody else who has public comment? seeing none we will close public comment. come back to the commission. any additional comments about objective six? >> just my ears may not be functioning as they did in prior times but seems to me we've had at least two or perhaps three people comment that things would be flushed out and may i suggest that flushed out is to get rid of and fleshed out is to make complete. i don't know how the transcript will come out but nevertheless. >> are there -- commissioner? >> yeah, i just want to say that i think it's good to make more explicit when talking about historic resources that we're
5:18 pm
talking about the panna play of resources and mr. beuller mentioned that which i think is important. >> commissioner. >> yeah, i have three comments, questions, overall. i don't know if we're done with objective six or not. >> any other comments about objective six? >> yes. i wanted to make one comment on the last speaker talking about the facade restoration and incentives. in ada there is a state law about the 20% rule if you're under a certain threshold of renovation you have to add 20% to that to deal with ada improvements, so it's an interesting idea and i don't know what the implementation would be but it's an interesting idea about if you're doing significant changes -- i mean it's one thing if you're just doing kitchens and baths but if you're doing
5:19 pm
significant changes there is beyond and above those you have some requirement to the public realm to do improvements there so i think it's an interesting idea. it doesn't apply to objective six per se but the planning department in looking at long-term goals how you implement this and maybe it is an implementation measure. that's an interesting idea. thanks. >>i would just say i agree with mr. beuller and the commissioner's comment about being specifically about the historic resource, term, in the policy of, generally in this section to -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah. so i think we can talk about overall comments. >> okay. >> commissioner. >> i have three. as part of the next steps we're going to have an opportunity to review all nine objectives and the draft text for that. will that
5:20 pm
also include implementation measures or will that be in two separate -- >> shelly [inaudible]. yes the complete document are the objectives and policies and implementation measures. that's the way the draft currently exists and we would keep it in that format so i think when we bring the complete document to you implementation measures will be a section. >> and do you have an idea when that will be? is that after the -- [inaudible] >> that's a great question. we're going to kick off our public comment period in early september. we will have an open house at the old mint we hope but we're working on that, and we don't want to finalize the document until we have gone through a thorough public comment period so we will start working on our edits during the public comment period because it's going to be a lot of work and it will require that amount of time but i don't think we're
5:21 pm
bringing it back for a really full review until probably the very end of the year of 2014. >> get more public comments before you actually do the draft text? >> that's right. that's right. >> so two other -- are the context statements going to be incorporated into the preservation element? have you guys thought about that? >> we have thought about it. there's a concern that literally incorporating historic context into the element makes it a huge document that would require updating every time we add to our historic context. the way the policies address historic context now it assumes that the historic context is one document but in reality the way we approached it is in a piecemeal fashion. if we change that approach then it becomes more realistic that it would become part of the preservation
5:22 pm
element but as is i think it would create too much process around adding to our and building our historic context so i think we prefer to have it as a separate document that gets adoption separately from the preservation element. we would retain some historic context information in the preservation element but my initial thought was we would focus on the history of historic preservation and policy within the city and that other aspects of the city's history would be addressed as well. >> just as referring to other policies and making sure they're updated incorporate within these elements reference to the context statements. i haven't thought about where that would go but somewhere, and last have you thought about how the goals and implementation measures are going to be summarized? are you
5:23 pm
envisioning a matrix where there are implementation timelines or responsibility assigned to who? >> in the current form it's simply a bulleted list. the implementation measures are a bulleted list but we would like to get more creative with the graphics of the document in general and we haven't started that conversation yet but i welcome any ideas and if you see examples that other cities or jurisdictions have produced i would love to see them. >> so the city of glendale and the city of santa monica. they're different, they're not the same but address in a matrix form. >> okay. >> any other overall comments objectives? do you have any closing remarks? >> no. i don't. i will be back august 20 and we will be
5:24 pm
talking about objective seven through nine. we can talk at that point when you would like to schedule any further hearings. if you would like regular updates as we're going through public comment as i will give you updated on the public outreach scheduled. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that places us on item 8, case number 2014- 0860u at 7272 vallejo street. request for review and comment. >> good afternoon commissioners. preservation staff. i am here to present on the burr house at 7272 vallejo street in the pacific heights neighborhood and prepared for the building owner. this is presented to you in the capacity as a certified local government the city and county of san francisco is given the opportunity to comment on
5:25 pm
questions to the national register of historic places. any comments that the commission has will be forwarded to the office of historic preservation. the byrd house is a three story single family dwelling constructed in 1878 and empire influences and constructed for former -- by former san franciscan mayor edwin burr for his son. the property is located in an intact garden setting and including two other buildings and a cottage constructed circa 1878 as a workshop for edwin burr and a garage constructed between 1913 and designated a landmark number as an outstanding victorian mansion. this commission approved a mills act contract
5:26 pm
for the property and scopes of work for the main house the cottage and the garden. the byrd house is locally significant and eligible for the register under criterion c and entact residential property located in a dense urban environment. they identified significance. it begins with the construction of the house and ends with the construction of the house's porch which say feature that gained significance in its own right. the department agrees it is significant under the krie for a extremely rare example of this type of resident in an intact garden setting but to include the cottage and garden as contributing part of the property. i would like to note that staff was in contact with the consultant that prepared the report and the decision to exclude the rear cottage and
5:27 pm
garden was made at the behest of the state office of historic preservation and felt it didn't contribute to the second empire architectural theme and the garden that has been landscapes no longer has sufficient integrity to contribute to the property and staff disagrees with the state office of historic preservation. the rear cottage was constructed as a chemistry workshop for him and has a relationship to the property. the yard and architecture is consistent with the out buildings of the era and similar that the garden should be a contributing feature as its presence convase the association with victoria design and aesthetics. other departments wrote comments in the case report and related to the rear cottage's construction and significance. it is my
5:28 pm
understanding prior to the meeting the consultant did make some of the minor revisions and revised draft for the state office of historic preservation. i would like to mention that the property ownership is not present today but i received a letter from the owner expressing support for the nomination. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer questions. >> does the applicant have presentation or comments? okay. thank you. bring it to the commission. comments or questions? commissioner. >> yeah. well, i would like to congratulate you and the staff of the planning department for coming up with a recommendation to include the cottage and the garden, and i am interested in if you looked into further utilizing criteria b and d -- well, associated with historic
5:29 pm
events and/or potential yield information as part of the supporting evidence for the nomination. there's no question that it meets the criteria and i am not debating that at all which i think is wonderful, but i think -- i am interested in, and i want to point out that this whole discussion about preservation and the preservation element we of increasingly discussing the interdependencies between humans and the built environment and the landscape and the context in which our buildings sit, and the social and cultural heritage, so and of course the national register when it was first set up and the criterion hasn't quite gotten to where we are at this point in the preservation discussion, but i think irrigation of the city of san francisco, the spring valley water company, has had a great
5:30 pm
influence on the city and actually a whole lot of history around irrigation, garden, landscaping, how the garden was -- we agree we don't see the evidence of the historic planting today but i guess my point is this is -- the additional criteria has the potential to yield information about environmental sustainability and to those kinds of things and that may mean a whole additional report which of course is not the focus of this discussion, but i just thought these would be appropriate comments to bring to the attention if they're rejecting the original ideas on this were kind of shortsighted. >> thank you for that comment. the nomination does leave up the question and this was a question from ohp that the cottage might